[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [無量壽經義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745) › 1.5 # 無量壽經義疏 1.5 無量壽經義疏 1.5 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1.5) 序中文義雖復眾多，義要唯二：一發起序、二證信序。佛將說經，先託時處，神力集眾，起所說宗，名為發起。與說為由，名發起序。證信序者，佛說經竟，阿難稟承將傳末代，先對眾生言如是法我從佛聞，證成可信，名為證信。以此證與，傳經為由，名證信序。以何義故立此二序一序？由經二故。經唯是一，何曾有二？經體雖一，約人隨時，故得分二：一如來所說經、二阿難所傳經，如來所說，益在當時；阿難所傳，傳之末代。對此二經，故立兩序。對如來所說，立發起序。對阿難所傳，立證信序。然此二序更有多義，備如常釋。文中初言「如是我聞」，是證信序。「一時」以下，義有兩兼：若取本事起發之義，判屬發起；阿難引來證成可信，名為證信。義既兩兼，不可偏取。證信序中，三門分別：一釋如是我聞有之所由、二明立意、三釋其文。有所由者，何緣經首悉有如是我聞之言？由佛教置。佛何緣教？阿難請故。彼何因請？由彼阿泥樓陀教故。阿泥樓陀何緣故教？由見阿難心憂惱故。阿難比丘何故憂惱？由見如來般涅槃故。佛將滅度，在於雙林北首而臥。是時阿難以佛將滅，悲啼涕泣不能自勝。阿泥樓陀開覺阿難：「汝傳法人，何不請佛未來世事？徒悲何益！」阿難對曰：「我今心沒憂海，知何所問？」阿泥樓陀遂教阿難請問四事：一問世尊滅後，諸比丘等以何為師；二問世尊滅後，諸比丘等依何而住；三問惡性比丘云何共居；四問一切經首當置何字。阿難被教，心少惺悟，遂依請佛，佛隨答之。諸比丘等以何為師者，當依波羅提木叉為師，若我住世無異於此。木叉是戒，比丘所學，故說為師。言諸比丘依何而住者，當依四念處住。何謂四念處？所謂比丘依內身修身觀，精懃除世貪愛。如是依外身、內外身，受、心、法亦如是，是謂比丘所依住處。故經說言「若住四念處，名自境界，不為魔縛。若住五欲，名魔境界，為魔所縛。」惡性比丘云何共居者，梵檀治之，梵檀是其默不共語；若心調伏，為說離有無。言一切經首置何字者，當置「如是我聞、佛在某方聚林」等六事。由佛教故，一切經首得著「如是我聞」。此初門竟。次辨立意。佛本何意教置此語？為生物信。如是云何得生信也？其「如是」者，阿難彰己信順佛語，噵佛所說。「如」，言佛所說。「是」，令他眾生同己生信。其「我聞」者，若為生信？阿難自是不足之人，若言此法是己所說，人多輕謗。由言此法從佛聞故，人皆歸信。信有何義，須立此言而生信乎？釋言：信者，入法初門、攝法上首，凡入佛法要先起信。故《華嚴》中說信為手。如人有手，至珍寶處隨意採取；若人無手，空無所獲。如是入佛法者，有信心手，隨意採取道法之寶；若無信心，空無所得。信有此義，故立如是我聞之言以生物信。立意如是。此兩門竟。次釋如是我聞之言。其「如是」者，解有兩義：一約法釋。阿難噵佛所說之言，如於諸法，故名為如。說理如理、說事如事、說因如因、說果如果，凡所論者皆如前事，故名為如。如法之言，是當道理，故名曰是。良以乖法，名為非是，故如法之言得稱為是。二約人解。阿難噵今釋迦所說，如於過去一切佛說，故名為如。故《涅槃經》云「如過去佛所說不變，故名如來。」乖諸佛說，其言則非；如諸佛說，其言則是。故曰如是。言「我聞」者，阿難對彼未來眾生陳己飡說，故曰我聞。聞實是耳，何得云我？諸根之別，皆我用具，就主以彰，故云我聞。法中無人，何處有主？而言就主稱說我聞？釋言：法中雖無定主，非無假名綰御，亦得稱我。故《涅槃》云「譬如四兵，合以成軍。雖無定主，亦得稱言我軍勇健、我軍勝彼。」此亦如是。問曰：阿難得理聖人，以何義故同凡說我？釋言：阿難雖復說我，不同凡夫。云何不同？說我有三：一見心說我，謂諸凡夫我見未亡，我見心中稱言有我。二慢心說我，謂諸學人，我見雖亡，慢心猶在，我慢心中稱說為我。三世流布我。謂無學聖人，見使久亡，慢使亦盡，隨世流布假名說我。然今阿難結集法時，身居無學，見慢亡除，隨世流布假名說我，故不同凡。問曰：我者假名世諦，無我真諦。真諦是勝，何不就勝宣說無我，乃從世諦假名說我？化我凡夫，法須如是。若不說我，何由可得檦別彼此令人識知？故須說我。是故乃至諸佛為化亦常說我？智者不怪。「一時」已下。義雖兩兼，對前一向證信序故，自下偏就發起以釋。於中有三：一明佛化主。二從「與大比丘」已下，辨其徒眾。三「爾時世尊諸根悅」下，如來現化而為發起，阿難啟請。前中「一時」，舉佛化時。言其「佛」者，舉佛化人。「住王舍」等，舉佛化處。言一時者，人有異釋。今正論之，為化之辰，因之為時。於佛一代化時眾多，簡別餘時，是故言一。一時之言，經中大有。如《涅槃》說「我於一時在王舍城，與彌勒菩薩共論世諦」、「我於一時在恒河岸」、「我於一時在尸首林」，此言似彼。佛如前釋。住王舍者，約城通舉。此城古昔多有王住，名王舍城。「耆闍崛山」，隨處別指。遶王舍城具有五山，皆有精舍。簡別餘處，是故須言耆闍崛山。此翻名為靈鷲山也。此山多有靈仙居住，故名為靈。亦有鷲鳥居止此山，故名為鷲。又亦名為鷲頭山矣。多有靈鷲居此山頂，名鷲頭山。又此山頂似鷲鳥頭，名鷲頭山。遊化處中，目之為住。法身平等實無棲託，示化在方，故云住耳。何不就實，乃託化乎？為通化教，故須從化。第二眾中，先列聲聞、後彰菩薩，諸經多爾。何故而然？凡釋有四：一、近遠分別。諸聲聞人多近如來，故明佛後，隨近先列；菩薩之人多不近佛，為是後列。聲聞何故偏近如來、菩薩不近？解有兩義：一聲聞之人，習道未久、未閑道法，雖得聖果，進止威儀常順佛教。如律經中，制阿那律不聽與彼女人同宿，制娑伽陀不聽飲酒，制十七童子不聽在於水中戲等，皆是羅漢順佛教制，乃至如來般涅槃，制諸聲聞不聽食完，為是近佛。菩薩之人，久閑道法、不假佛教，故不近佛。二聲聞之人，現蒙佛度，捨凡成聖，荷恩深重，雖得聖果，常隨如來圍侍供養，故多近佛。菩薩之人，雖荷佛恩，化眾生事隨緣攝化，多不近佛。以彼聲聞多近如來，故先檦列；菩薩不爾，故在後列。此是第一近遠分別。二、就威儀形相分別。聲聞人等，執持威儀，形相似佛，世共尊敬，故在先列。菩薩隨化，形儀不定，故在後列。如彼文殊，一夏之中三處安居，即是事也。三、就治分別，亦得名為約教分別。如龍樹釋教有二種：一者顯示、二者祕密。依顯示教，羅漢辟支同佛漏盡，舉佛後先列聲聞。菩薩隨化，現處諸漏，示為凡夫。世人若聞在羅漢上，人多驚怪，故後列。諸經之中先列聲聞，多皆據此。若依甚深祕密之教，菩薩德尊，宜在先列；聲聞德劣，須在後列。故《華嚴經》先列菩薩，至後祇洹重閣會中方列聲聞。四、多少分別。如《涅槃》說「一切眾中，少者先列，多者後列。」於彼經中，聲聞眾少，故在先列；菩薩眾多，故在後列。此後一義，局在《涅槃》；餘通眾經。今此且依前之二義，先列聲聞、後彰菩薩。 > Although the principles and meanings within the preface are many, its essential points are just two: first, the preface of initiation; second, the preface confirming credibility. When the Buddha is about to preach a sūtra, he first relies upon a time and place, gathers the assembly through spiritual power, and gives rise to the central doctrine to be taught; this is called initiation. As it provides the cause for the preaching, it is called the preface of initiation. As for the preface confirming credibility: after the Buddha finished preaching the sūtra, Ānanda received it, and being about to transmit it to the final age, he first spoke to sentient beings, saying, 'Such Dharma I heard from the Buddha,' which establishes that it can be trusted; hence it is called confirming credibility. Because this provides confirmation and serves as the cause for transmitting the sūtra, it is called the preface confirming credibility. For what reason are these two prefaces established for one preface? Because the sūtra is twofold. The sūtra is only one—how could there ever be two? Although the substance of the sūtra is one, according to the persons and in accordance with the times, it can be divided into two: first, the sūtra spoken by the Tathāgata; second, the sūtra transmitted by Ānanda. What was spoken by the Tathāgata benefited those at that time; what was transmitted by Ānanda is transmitted to the final age. In response to these two sūtras, two prefaces are therefore established. In response to what was spoken by the Tathāgata, the preface of initiation is established. In response to what was transmitted by Ānanda, the preface confirming credibility is established. However, these two prefaces contain many more meanings, fully explained as usual. In the text, the opening words 'Thus have I heard' are the preface confirming credibility. From 'at one time' onward, the meaning is twofold: if one takes the sense of initiating the original event, it is determined to belong to initiation; if Ānanda adduces it to confirm that it can be trusted, it is called confirming credibility. Since the meaning is twofold, one cannot take only one side. Within the preface confirming credibility, there are three sections of analysis: first, explaining the reason for having 'Thus have I heard'; second, clarifying the intention in establishing it; third, explaining its text. As for the reason: for what cause do all sūtras have the words 'Thus have I heard' at their head? Because the Buddha instructed that they be placed there. For what reason did the Buddha instruct this? Because Ānanda requested it. Why did he request it? Because Aniruddha instructed him. For what reason did Aniruddha instruct him? Because he saw that Ānanda's mind was distressed and afflicted. Why was the monk Ānanda distressed and afflicted? Because he saw the Tathāgata enter parinirvāṇa. When the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, he lay in the Twin Sala Grove with his head to the north. At that time, because the Buddha was about to pass into extinction, Ānanda wept and sobbed, unable to contain himself. Aniruddha awakened Ānanda: 'You are the transmitter of the Dharma; why do you not question the Buddha about matters of future generations? What benefit is there in vain sorrow!' Ānanda replied: 'My mind is now submerged in an ocean of grief; what should I ask?' Aniruddha then instructed Ānanda to ask about four matters: first, to ask who the monks and others should take as their teacher after the World-Honoured One's extinction; second, to ask upon what the monks and others should rely and abide after the World-Honoured One's extinction; third, how to dwell together with monks of an evil nature; fourth, what words should be placed at the head of all sūtras. Having received this instruction, Ānanda's mind awakened slightly, and he then questioned the Buddha accordingly, and the Buddha answered him in turn. As to who the monks and others should take as their teacher: they should rely on the prātimokṣa as their teacher; if I remained in the world, it would be no different from this. Mokṣa is the precepts, that which monks study; therefore it is said to be the teacher. As to upon what the monks should rely and abide: they should abide relying on the four applications of mindfulness. What are the four applications of mindfulness? Namely, a monk, relying on the internal body, cultivates the contemplation of the body, diligently eliminating worldly covetousness and affection. So too relying on the external body, internal and external body; sensations, mind, and dharmas are also like this. This is called the place where monks rely and abide. Therefore a sūtra says: 'If one abides in the four applications of mindfulness, it is called one's own domain, and one will not be bound by Māra. If one abides in the five desires, it is called Māra's domain, and one will be bound by Māra.' As to how to dwell together with monks of an evil nature: regulate them with the Brahmadaṇḍa. Brahmadaṇḍa means to remain silent and not speak with them; if their minds are subdued, preach for them liberation from being and non-being. As to what words should be placed at the head of all sūtras: one should place the six matters, such as 'Thus have I heard, the Buddha was in such-and-such a region, settlement, and grove.' Because of the Buddha's instruction, all sūtras are able to bear 'Thus have I heard' at their head. This concludes the first section. Next is to clarify the intention in establishing it. With what intention did the Buddha originally instruct the placement of these words? To give rise to beings' faith. How does 'thus' give rise to faith? 'Thus' means that Ānanda demonstrates his own faith and compliance with the Buddha's words, stating that what the Buddha spoke is 'as' \[things are\]. Saying that what the Buddha spoke is 'right' causes other sentient beings to give rise to faith identical to his own. As for 'I have heard,' how does it give rise to faith? Ānanda was himself an inadequate person; if he said that this Dharma was spoken by himself, people would mostly disparage and slander it. Because he said that this Dharma was heard from the Buddha, everyone took refuge in faith. What significance does faith have that requires establishing these words to generate faith? In explanation: faith is the first gate for entering the Dharma, the foremost leader in gathering the Dharma; whenever one enters the Buddha's Dharma, one must first give rise to faith. Therefore the Avataṃsaka speaks of faith as hands: just as a person who has hands, upon reaching a place of precious jewels, gathers them at will, while a person without hands gains nothing at all, so too one who enters the Buddha's Dharma, possessing the hands of a faithful mind, gathers the jewels of the Dharma of the Way at will; if one lacks a faithful mind, one gains nothing at all. Because faith has this significance, the words 'Thus have I heard' were established to give rise to beings' faith. Such is the intention in establishing it. This concludes these two sections. Next is to explain the words 'Thus have I heard.' In 'thus' (ru-shi), the explanation has two aspects: first, explaining it in terms of phenomena. Ānanda states that the words spoken by the Buddha are as (ru) all phenomena, and therefore it is called 'as' (ru). Preaching principle as principle, preaching facts as facts, preaching causes as causes, preaching results as results—whatever is discussed is entirely as the aforementioned matter, and therefore it is called 'as'. Words that are in accord with phenomena are correct (shi) in their proper principle, and therefore it is called 'right' (shi). Truly, because departing from phenomena is called incorrect, words in accord with phenomena can be called 'right'. Second, explaining it in terms of persons. Ānanda states that what Śākyamuni now spoke is as (ru) what all buddhas of the past spoke, and therefore it is called 'as'. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Because what was spoken is unchanging like that of past buddhas, he is called the Tathāgata.' Departing from the speech of the buddhas, one's words are wrong; being as the speech of the buddhas, one's words are right (shi). Therefore it is said 'thus' (ru-shi). As for 'I have heard': Ānanda, addressing those future sentient beings, states his own hearing of the preaching; therefore he says 'I have heard.' Hearing is truly the ear—how can one say 'I'? The distinctions among the sense faculties are all instruments used by the 'I'; speaking with reference to the master, it is therefore said 'I have heard.' There is no person within dharmas; where is there a master, such that you speak of referring to a master to say 'I have heard'? In explanation: although within dharmas there is no fixed master, there is nonetheless nominal coordination and governance, so one can also speak of 'I'. Therefore the Nirvāṇa says: 'For example, four divisions of troops combine to make an army. Although there is no fixed master, one can also say: "My army is brave and robust; my army surpasses them."' This is also like that. Question: Ānanda was a sage who had attained principle; for what reason did he speak of 'I' in the same manner as ordinary people? In explanation: although Ānanda also spoke of 'I', it was not the same as ordinary worldlings. How was it not the same? There are three ways of speaking of 'I': first, speaking of 'I' with a mind of view: this refers to ordinary worldlings in whom the view of self has not yet perished, who state that there is an 'I' within their mind of the view of self. Second, speaking of 'I' with a mind of conceit: this refers to practitioners in training whose view of self has perished, but whose mind of conceit still remains, and who speak of 'I' within their mind of self-conceit. Third, the conventionally circulating 'I': this refers to sages beyond training, whose underlying afflictions of views have long perished, and whose underlying afflictions of conceit are also exhausted, who speak of 'I' as a conventional designation in accordance with worldly circulation. Now when Ānanda compiled the Dharma, he was established in the stage beyond training, his views and conceit had perished and been eliminated, and he spoke of 'I' as a conventional designation in accordance with worldly circulation; therefore it is not the same as ordinary people. Question: 'I' is a conventional designation belonging to conventional truth, while non-self is ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is superior; why not rely on the superior to declare non-self, rather than speaking of 'I' following the conventional designation of conventional truth? To transform our ordinary people, the method must be like this. If one did not speak of 'I', how could one indicate and distinguish this from that so as to enable people to recognize it? Therefore one must speak of 'I'. For this reason, even the buddhas, in order to transform, also constantly speak of 'I'. The wise do not find this strange. From 'at one time' onward: although the meaning is twofold, in contrast to the previous section which is solely the preface confirming credibility, the following is explained specifically in terms of initiation. Within this there are three parts: first, clarifying the Buddha as the teaching master. Second, from 'together with a great monk \[assembly\]' onward, distinguishing his disciples and assembly. Third, from 'At that time the World-Honoured One's sense faculties were radiant' onward, the Tathāgata manifests a transformation as an initiation, and Ānanda makes his request. In the first part, 'at one time' raises the time of the Buddha's teaching. The word 'Buddha' raises the person teaching the transformation. 'Dwelling in Rājagṛha' and so forth raises the place of the Buddha's teaching. As for 'at one time,' people have differing explanations. Discussing it properly now: the occasion of transforming is consequently called 'time'. Among the Buddha's lifetime, the times of teaching were numerous; to distinguish it from other times, it is therefore said 'one'. The expression 'at one time' occurs abundantly in the sūtras. As the Nirvāṇa says: 'I, at one time in the city of Rājagṛha, discussed conventional truth together with the Bodhisattva Maitreya'; 'I, at one time on the bank of the Ganges'; 'I, at one time in the Forest of Corpses'—these words are similar to that. 'Buddha' is as explained previously. 'Dwelling in Rājagṛha' refers generally to the city. In ancient times, many kings dwelt in this city; hence it is named the City of the King's Abode (Rājagṛha). 'Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa' points specifically to the location. Surrounding the city of Rājagṛha there are five mountains in all, each having a vihāra. To distinguish it from the other places, one must therefore say Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa. Translated here, it is named Numinous Vulture Mountain. This mountain had many spiritual immortals dwelling there, so it is named 'numinous'; there were also vulture birds dwelling on this mountain, so it is named 'vulture'. It is also named Vulture Peak Mountain. Many spiritual vultures dwell on this mountain summit, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain; moreover, the summit of this mountain resembles the head of a vulture bird, hence the name Vulture Peak Mountain. Dwelling in the midst of the place of wandering and transforming is termed 'dwelling'. The dharmakāya is uniform and truly has no resting place; manifesting transformation in a specific direction, it is therefore merely said to 'dwell'. Why not adhere to the real, instead relying on transformation? In order to communicate the teaching of transformation, one must follow transformation. In the second part, the assembly: first the śrāvakas are listed, and afterward the bodhisattvas are displayed. Many sūtras are like this. Why is it so? Generally, there are four explanations: First, distinguishing by near and far. The śrāvakas mostly stayed near the Tathāgata; therefore, after identifying the Buddha, they are listed first according to their proximity; bodhisattvas mostly did not stay near the Buddha, and for this reason are listed afterward. Why were the śrāvakas specifically near the Tathāgata while the bodhisattvas were not near? The explanation has two aspects: First, the śrāvakas had not practiced the Way for long and were not yet skilled in the Dharma of the Way; although they had attained the noble fruit, their bodily deportment constantly complied with the Buddha's teachings. As in the Vinaya sūtras, Aniruddha was prohibited from staying overnight with a woman, Sāgata was prohibited from drinking alcohol, the group of seventeen youths was prohibited from sporting in water, and so forth—these were all arhats complying with the Buddha's disciplinary prohibitions, up until the Tathāgata's parinirvāṇa, when the śrāvakas were prohibited from eating leftovers; for this reason they stayed near the Buddha. Bodhisattvas had long been skilled in the Dharma of the Way and did not depend on the Buddha's instruction; therefore they did not stay near the Buddha. Second, the śrāvakas had presently received the Buddha's deliverance, leaving behind the ordinary to become noble, and bore profound and heavy gratitude; although they had attained the noble fruit, they constantly followed the Tathāgata, attending upon and making offerings to him; therefore they mostly stayed near the Buddha. Although bodhisattvas also bore the Buddha's grace, their task was to transform sentient beings, gathering them according to conditions; thus they mostly did not stay near the Buddha. Because those śrāvakas mostly stayed near the Tathāgata, they are listed first; bodhisattvas were not like this, so they are listed afterward. This is the first: distinguishing by near and far. Second, distinguishing by deportment and outward appearance. The śrāvakas maintained decorous deportment and in appearance resembled the Buddha, being universally revered by the world; therefore they are listed first. Bodhisattvas adapted to transformations, and their forms and deportment were not fixed; therefore they are listed afterward. As in the case of Mañjuśrī spending the summer retreat in three different places during a single summer, that is an example of this. Third, distinguishing by regulation, which can also be called distinguishing by teaching. As Nāgārjuna explained, teachings are of two kinds: first, explicit; second, esoteric. According to the explicit teaching, arhats and pratyekabuddhas, like the Buddha, have exhausted outflows; after mentioning the Buddha, the śrāvakas are listed first. Bodhisattvas, adapting to transformation, manifest abiding in outflows and appear as ordinary worldlings. If worldly people heard that they were placed above arhats, many would be alarmed and astonished; therefore they are listed afterward. The listing of śrāvakas first in various sūtras is mostly based on this. If according to the profound, esoteric teaching, the virtue of bodhisattvas is exalted and should be listed first, while the virtue of śrāvakas is inferior and must be listed afterward. Therefore the Avataṃsaka Sūtra lists bodhisattvas first, and only later, in the assembly at the multi-storied pavilion of the Jeta Grove, lists the śrāvakas. Fourth, distinguishing by quantity. As the Nirvāṇa says: 'Among all the assemblies, the fewer are listed first, and the more are listed afterward.' In that sūtra, the śrāvaka assembly was small, so they are listed first; the bodhisattva assembly was vast, so they are listed afterward. This last explanation is confined to the Nirvāṇa, whereas the others apply broadly to various sūtras. Here, we tentatively rely on the first two explanations to list the śrāvakas first and display the bodhisattvas afterward. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1.4) - [Next: 1.6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1.6.1) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745~en-mt.1.5) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大般涅槃經義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.1.23) — Classical Chinese - [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.19) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1745.1.5) · Pramāṇa